'Pakistan Zindabad' Alone Is Not Sedition Under Section 152 BNS: Allahabad High Court

“For attracting the ingredients of Section 152 BNS, there must be purpose... to promote secession, armed rebellion, subversive activities or encourages feeling of separating activities or endangers the sovereignty, unity and integrity of India” — Justice Santosh Rai

In a significant pronouncement protecting free speech from over-criminalisation, the Allahabad High Court on 25 September 2025 granted bail to Sajid Chaudhary, accused of posting “Pakistan Zindabad” in a Facebook comment. The State had charged him under Section 152 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) — a newly introduced offence that replaces sedition with broader language aimed at punishing acts threatening national unity and sovereignty.

Justice Santosh Rai, hearing the Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 21835 of 2025, rejected the prosecution’s attempt to equate a one-line social media comment with sedition, holding that the statutory threshold under Section 152 BNS was not met, and cautioned that free expression, even if offensive, must be examined through the lens of a strong-minded reasonable citizen, not hypersensitive sentiment.

“Sedition-Like Provisions Cannot Be Invoked for Emotional or Ideological Expression” — Court Dissects Section 152 BNS

The FIR against the applicant was based on a comment he made on a Pakistani citizen’s social media post, which read: “Kamran Bhatti Proud of You, Pakistan Zindabad”. The prosecution claimed this constituted a threat to India's sovereignty and sought denial of bail, arguing that such praise for Pakistan encouraged separatist sentiments.

However, the Court held that the mere expression of support for another country — even one historically hostile to India — does not, without more, attract the stringent requirements of Section 152 BNS, which criminalises attempts to “incite secession, armed rebellion, or subversive activities.”

Justice Rai categorically stated: “Section 152 BNS is a new Section providing stringent punishment... liberty of freedom of speech and expression should not be narrowly construed unless it is of such nature which affects the sovereignty and integrity of a country or encourages separatism.” [Para 8]

The Court also clarified that while such a post may be distasteful or even cause public resentment, it does not constitute a penal offence unless it is shown that the comment was intended to incite rebellion or disrupt national unity.

“Law Must Be Interpreted Through the Eyes of the Reasonable Man, Not the Offended Mind” — Reference to Imran Pratapgadhi Judgment Strengthens Free Speech Jurisprudence

In a powerful reiteration of constitutional values, the Court relied on the Supreme Court’s recent judgment in Imran Pratapgadhi v. State of Gujarat, which laid down the "reasonable person" standard for determining criminal liability arising from speech, especially on online platforms.

Justice Rai cited the apex court:

“Before registering a case regarding a post on social media, it should be looked into as a reasonable man and decision should be based on standards of reasonable, strong-minded, firm and courageous individuals and not based on standards of people with weak and oscillating minds.” [Para 9]

In this context, the judge noted that law enforcement agencies must act within the four corners of the Constitution, and that criminalising emotional, political, or ideological statements without concrete threat to public order or unity erodes the fundamental right under Article 19(1)(a).

“Extended Pre-Trial Incarceration Violates Article 21” — Bail Granted on Grounds of Prolonged Detention and Absence of Criminal History

The Court found further reason to grant bail based on the applicant's continued detention since May 2025, with no prior criminal history and uncertainty over the trial timeline.

Quoting the Supreme Court’s decision in Manish Sisodia v. Directorate of Enforcement, the Court reiterated the right to speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution, observing:

“Applicant being under-trial having fundamental right to speedy trial… and considering 5-6 times overcrowding in jails over and above their capacity… the applicant is entitled to bail.” [Para 10]

The Court also noted that there was no allegation of tampering with evidence, nor was there any material showing that the accused had incited others to rebel or join subversive activities. Even the State admitted that no direct threat to national integrity had been made by the applicant.

“Support for Foreign Nation, However Disagreeable, Cannot Be Prosecuted as Treason Without Real Harm” — Court Draws Line Between Speech and Sedition

In dissecting the evidentiary material, the Court made an important distinction. While the applicant’s post may be seen as provocative or unpatriotic, the law does not criminalise feelings or expressions in a vacuum. The prosecution’s failure to show any act or intention to destabilise the Indian state proved fatal to their case.

Justice Rai held: “Merely posting a message to simply show support of any country may create anger or disharmony among citizens... but will not attract the ingredients of Section 152 BNS.” [Para 8]

He added that at best, the prosecution could consider invoking Section 196 BNS, which deals with inciting enmity and carries a lesser punishment, but even that must be carefully evaluated under the Constitution's guarantees.

Bail Granted with Cautionary Conditions; Court Warns Against Abuse of Liberty

While granting bail, the Court imposed stringent compliance conditions — including mandatory attendance at key hearings, non-interference with evidence, and cooperation with trial — clearly stating:

“In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.” [Para 11]

The Court also warned that misuse of bail would trigger action under Section 229-A IPC / 269 BNS and Section 174-A IPC / 209 BNS, reinforcing that liberty carries responsibility.

This judgment is a landmark in shaping how courts must interpret free speech under the new Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, especially its replacement for the sedition provision, now codified as Section 152 BNS. The Allahabad High Court has drawn a clear constitutional line between what is merely offensive and what is truly dangerous.

In doing so, it reaffirms that not every expression of controversial opinion qualifies as a criminal act, and that the judiciary has a vital duty to shield civil liberties against overreach in the name of national security.

“Speech must disturb, offend, and challenge—but it must not endanger the nation. Only the latter invites the law. The former invites debate.” — this, in essence, is the philosophy that animates this ruling.

Date of Decision: 25 September 2025